Zelensky says he will meet US president in Washington
16/08/2025
Alaska summit: Putin managed 'to get out of the international isolation'
16/08/2025
Trump-Putin summit: What could Europe and Ukraine's next moves be?
16/08/2025
Trump, Putin end joint press conference without taking questions
16/08/2025
Trump-Putin talks: In Ukraine, 'nobody was expecting much from this summit'
16/08/2025
What are the key takeaways from the Trump-Putin summit?
16/08/2025
Trump-Putin summit ends without a deal
16/08/2025
'Neither leader went into any detail': Trump-Putin remarks leave media in the dark
16/08/2025
REPLAY: Trump and Putin give joint press conference after Ukraine talks, take no questions
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
41 minutes ago
- Euronews
What is de-banking? How EU, US & UK banks screen their risky customers
Imagine logging into your bank account one morning and finding everything frozen—cards declined, standing orders stopped and your savings untouchable. No fraud alert, no bounced cheque. Just a brief message: 'We are closing your account. Please make alternative arrangements.' This is not a rare nightmare. Around the world, more people and businesses are being 'de-banked'—cut off from basic banking services. In the financial industry, the practice is called 'de-risking' or when banks sever ties with clients or even whole sectors to avoid regulatory or reputational risk. While it might sound like a niche compliance issue, in reality, it sits at the intersection of financial crime prevention, political rights, trade flows and everyday access to money—and the UK, US and EU are taking sharply different approaches to it. The US: Concerns over "woke capitalism"? Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at preventing banks from denying services based on political or religious beliefs. The order bans the use of 'reputational risk' as a justification for closing accounts and directs banking regulators to review practices within 180 days. Supporters say the move protects freedom of political expression and stops discrimination against conservatives, who claim they have been disproportionately targeted. Critics warn it could force banks to keep serving clients engaged in activities that create genuine financial crime or security risks. As with many issues Trump is passionate about, the topic of de-banking in the US was spurred by his personal experiences. He repeatedly accused JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of refusing his business after his first term as president because of his and his supporters' conservative views. He claims JPMorgan gave him 20 days to close his account and that Bank of America refused a large deposit even though both banks have denied politically motivated action. Another high-profile case was that of the National Council for Religious Freedom (NCRF), an organization founded in 2022 that explicitly backs politicians who support combining politics with religion and vote against bills such as the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, "because it prohibits religious freedoms." Groups like these, especially if they rise to national prominence quickly and start depositing large sums into their accounts without providing sufficient background or donor transparency, can trigger automatic responses from banks worried about compliance with anti-money laundering regulation and are subject to enhanced monitoring. So when NCRF's accounts at JPMorgan Chase were suspended, it was probably not based on their clients political beliefs. Banks are profit-maximising institutions who aim to serve a wide yet reliable client base—drawing political attention to their work is the stuff of literal nightmares for them, especially banking behemoths like JPMorgan Chase. In a letter, the bank said the closure was due to incomplete compliance documentation—not religious or political reasons. Yet the NCRF used this decision to decry "woke capitalism" and launch a national campaign in the US to limit decisions, including reputational risk, and focus solely on quantifiable risks like credit, operational or compliance issues. The new executive order is cause for headaches for bankers. In practice, lenders may have to review thousands of past account closures, document decisions more extensively and possibly reinstate customers they previously cut off. The UK: Farage, Coutts and public outrage In Britain, the debate was turbo-charged by the 2023 Nigel Farage–Coutts affair. When the high-end bank closed the Brexit campaigner's account, internal documents later revealed the decision factored in his political views. The row became front-page news, prompting government promises to strengthen transparency. From a compliance and commercial standpoint, there are reasons why Coutts' decision may have been well within the norms of risk management. Farage's status as a politician makes him a Politically Exposed Person or PEP under anti–money laundering rules. UK banks are required to apply enhanced due diligence to PEPs, including detailed checks on sources of wealth, closer transaction monitoring and ongoing reassessment of any potential links to corruption or financial crime. That doesn't imply wrongdoing—but it does mean the account demands more resources and carries a higher regulatory burden. For a bank whose value proposition is built on discreet, low-risk relationships, this can tip the cost-benefit balance. Reports at the time suggested that Farage's account had fallen below Coutts' minimum financial thresholds for certain services. When a client no longer meets profitability benchmarks, but still demands high levels of compliance oversight and carries reputational sensitivities, a private bank has strong incentives to part ways. In that light, Coutts' choice looks less like a political purge and more like a calculated alignment of its client book with its risk appetite and commercial strategy. However, that was not the angle that dominated the headlines, and it ended up shaping de-risking and de-banking policy in a significant way in the UK. In 2024, complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service about account closures rose 44% to nearly 3,900, with a higher proportion upheld in favour of consumers. Meanwhile, over 140,000 business accounts were closed in 2023—raising concerns, especially for small businesses and non‑profits. Since then, UK banks must give customers at least 90 days notice before closure and provide more detail on why accounts are terminated. The conversation is still dominated by high-profile, politically sensitive cases—rather than the wider economic and trade implications of de-risking. The EU: Quiet, technical and high stakes By contrast, Brussels has treated de-risking as a long-standing, largely technical policy challenge. For years, EU institutions have issued guidance to safeguard financial inclusion while enforcing anti–money laundering and counter–terrorism financing (AML/CFT) rules. "European Banking Federation (EBF) member banks often find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place: they must comply with stringent AML/CFT requirements—they are required to end relationships with their riskiest clients—yet they are requested to ensure access to basic banking services for legitimate customers," the European Banking Federation told Euronews in a statement. "Hence their de-risking decisions should remain proportionate and risk-based, not indiscriminate bans on entire countries or customer groups," they continued. According to the EBF, most banks in Europe focus on individual, case-by-case de-risking and pay particular attention to 'red flags'. For example, situations where a customer's identity cannot be verified using secure, government-approved ID checks, or any transaction in which they cannot confidently confirm who the person or company really are or who the "beneficial owner" is. For member banks, it is a matter of weighing whether the risks can be reduced enough to comply with regulations and protect the bank's reputation, and whether managing that risk would require more time, money, and effort than the account is ultimately worth. "In the EU, de-risking is increasingly recognised as a significant consumer issue, though it is neither a new concern nor one that fully mirrors the priorities of the Trump Administration," the EBF statement continues. "For years, EU institutions—most notably the European Banking Authority—have issued guidance aimed at safeguarding financial inclusion and ensuring that legitimate customers are not unfairly excluded from the banking system."
France 24
4 hours ago
- France 24
Trump gives Putin 'peace letter' from wife Melania
The first lady's office on Saturday reposted a Fox News article on X containing the short letter, a day after Trump and Putin failed to find a breakthrough at their high-stakes meeting. Putin read the "peace letter" immediately after Trump handed it to him, while delegations from both sides looked on, according to Fox News. "In today's world, some children are forced to carry a quiet laughter, untouched by the darkness around them," read the letter, which was signed by the first lady and did not mention Ukraine by name. "Mr Putin, you can singlehandedly restore their melodic laughter," it added. "In protecting the innocence of these children, you will do more than serve Russia alone -- you serve humanity itself." "Such a bold idea transcends all human division, and you, Mr Putin, are fit to implement this vision with a stroke of the pen today," the letter read. "It is time." In July, the US president had said that his wife, who was born in Slovenia, had helped change his thinking about Putin. "I go home, I tell the first lady, 'you know, I spoke to Vladimir today, we had a wonderful conversation,'" Trump said. "And she said, 'Oh really? Another city was just hit.'" Trump attempted a rapprochement with Putin shortly after starting his second term, having campaigned on a pledge to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours. During the early months of his new term, he largely directed anger at Ukraine for the lack of a deal, but gradually began expressing frustration that Putin continued his attacks on Ukraine. Before the summit in Alaska, Trump had warned of "severe consequences" if Russia did not accept a ceasefire. However after meeting with Putin, Trump dropped his demand for a ceasefire, saying the best way to end the war "is to go directly to a peace agreement." Putin has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal -- a strategy that Ukraine and its European allies have criticized as a way to buy time and press Russia's battlefield advances.
LeMonde
5 hours ago
- LeMonde
Zelensky says Russia refusing ceasefire 'complicates the situation'
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia refusing to accept a ceasefire was complicating efforts to end Moscow's more than three-year-long conflict against his country. "We see that Russia rebuffs numerous calls for a ceasefire and has not yet determined when it will stop the killing. This complicates the situation," he said in a social media post late Saturday, August 16. "If they lack the will to carry out a simple order to stop the strikes, it may take a lot of effort to get Russia to have the will to implement far greater – peaceful coexistence with its neighbors for decades." Trump drops Ukraine ceasefire demand after Putin summit The comment comes after Donald Trump earlier on Saturday dropped his push for a ceasefire in Ukraine in favor of pursuing a full peace accord – a major shift announced hours after his summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin yielded no clear breakthrough. Prior to the high-stakes meeting in Alaska, securing an immediate cessation of hostilities had been a core demand of Trump – who had threatened "severe consequences" on Russia – and European leaders, including Zelensky, who will visit Washington on Monday. The shift away from ceasefire would seem to favor Putin, who has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal – a strategy that Ukraine and its European allies have criticized as a way to buy time and press Russia's battlefield advances. Trump spoke with Zelensky and European leaders on his flight back to Washington, saying afterward that "it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement which would end the war." Ceasefire agreements "often times do not hold up," Trump added on his Truth Social platform. In the call, Trump expressed support for a proposal by Putin to take full control of two largely Russian-held Ukrainian regions in exchange for freezing the frontline in two others, an official briefed on the talks told AFP. Putin "de facto demands that Ukraine leave Donbas," an area consisting of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine, the source said. In exchange, Russian forces would halt their offensive in the Black Sea port region of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine, whose main cities are still under Ukrainian control. Several months into its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia in September 2022 claimed to have annexed all four Ukrainian regions even though its troops still do not fully control any of them. "The Ukrainian president refused to leave Donbas," the source said. Trump notably also said the United States was prepared to provide Ukraine security guarantees, an assurance German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hailed as "significant progress." But there was a scathing assessment of the summit outcome from the European Union's top diplomat Kaja Kallas, who accused Putin of seeking to "drag out negotiations" with no commitment to end the bloodshed. "The harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war any time soon," Kallas said. Zelensky back in White House The main diplomatic focus now switches to Zelensky's talks at the White House on Monday. An EU source told AFP that a number of European leaders had also been invited to attend. The Ukrainian president's last Oval Office visit in February ended in an extraordinary shouting match, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly berating Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for US aid. Zelensky said Saturday after a "substantive" conversation with Trump about the Alaska summit that he looked forward to his Washington visit and discussing "all of the details regarding ending the killing and the war." In an interview with broadcaster Fox News after his sit-down with Putin, Trump had suggested that the onus was now on Zelensky to secure a peace deal as they work towards an eventual trilateral summit with Putin. "It's really up to President Zelensky to get it done," Trump said. "And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit, but it's up to President Zelensky." European pressure The leaders of France, Britain and Germany are due to host a video call Sunday for their so-called "coalition of the willing" to discuss the way forward. In an earlier statement, they welcomed the plan for a Trump-Putin-Zelensky summit, but added that they would maintain pressure on Russia in the absence of a ceasefire. "We will continue to strengthen sanctions and wider economic measures to put pressure on Russia's war economy until there is a just and lasting peace," the statement said. Meanwhile, the conflict in Ukraine raged on, with Kyiv announcing Saturday that Russia had launched 85 attack drones and a ballistic missile during the night. Back in Moscow, Putin said his summit talks with Trump had been "timely" and "very useful." "The conversation was very frank, substantive, and, in my opinion, brings us closer to the necessary decisions," he said. In his post-summit statement in Alaska, Putin had warned Ukraine and European countries not to engage in any "behind-the-scenes intrigues" that could disrupt what he called "this emerging progress."
